Skip to main content

About your Search

20130302
20130310
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 64 (some duplicates have been removed)
for national defense and other reasons. but now they're loaning them out to local law enforcement and law enforcement's also buying drones directly. so they have high-resolution cameras, heat censors and sophisticated radar on the border protection drones that can help track criminal activity in the united states, just as the c.i.a. uses predators and other drones to spy on militants in pakistan, nuclear sites in iran and other targets around the globe. for decades, u.s. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. this is that sort of open spaces doctrine. i'm not saying it makes it right but the government has been doing it for decades. some of the courts have apparently ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a back yard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws. you know, i don't think i agree with that. if you're swimming in your pool in your back yard, if you're in your hot tub in your back yard, just because we have the technology to be able to see you in your hot tub, does that really mea
presidents, because if they do, they will have committed an act of murder. noncombatants under the law of war are protected, not subject to being killed randomly. so to suggest that the president won't answer that question somehow legitimizes that the drone program is going to result in being used against anybody in this room having a cup of coffee, to me, cheapens the debate and is something not worthy of -- mr. mccain: could i ask my colleague a question, especially on that subject? a lot of our friends, particularly senator paul and others, pride themselves on their strict adherence to the constitution and the decisions of the supreme court. isn't it true that as a result of an attack on long island during world war ii that an american citizen, among others, was captured and hung on american soil? and the united states supreme court upheld that execution because that individual was an enemy combatant? is that established without a doubt? the fact that these are enemy combatants, and no matter where they are, they are subject to the -- to the form of justice as the terrorist in world war ii
for the moment on gun violence prevention. as a law enforcement professional, not just as attorney general, but one who has been a judge and prosecutor, this whole idea of better enforcement of existing laws is one we both agree ought to be the goal, and it always is for any prosecutor. and yet enforcement of some of these laws is impeded by gaps in those laws, such as the absence of akron checks on firearms, which now in able about 40% of all firearm purchases to go without any check whatsoever. you would agree with that, wouldn't you? >> yet. there are loopholes. has become to describe them, that make the enforcement of existing laws extremely difficult and render those existing laws not nearly as effective as they might otherwise be. >> and those laws now prohibit purchases of firearms by categories of people, convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts and abusers, and domestic violence abusers. purchases on firearms and ammunition, both firearms and ammunition. right now there's no background check as to purchases of ammunition, none whatsoever. and as a matter of common sense as well a
that it doesn't require measures like lawsuits in order to uphold the laws of this body has passed. certainly, it is confirmed in this position and i look forward to bringing the parties to the table to discuss the different points of view and see if we can find common ground. >> link you, and i know that state and local government would be appreciative of being involved in that process early on, being at that table, rather than presented with the settlement that they have to live with and have no role in bargaining for. >> thank you. senator, i share your view about the upfront preventive way and i was glad to see that we share those interests. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for dropping by the office since last week. >> it is my view that history will look back on this time and ask how it could happen that the united states of america and the congress did not respond vigorously what the scientific community has. we have scientists who tell us that if we do not get our act together and cut back substantially on greenhouse gas emissions, it is also likely that the temperature will ri
thoughtfully. you know, the degree to which there is movement away from the current law, probably more related to fear of destruction and it'll be almost anything else. and that maybe the in some cases and it may be bad in some cases. that's a really thoughtful conclusion, isn't it? [laughter] >> you covered the basics. >> completely covered. >> you know, much of the opening comments that mark, you put out there, sort of frame a picture of where we could be in the system. with real emphasis on wellness, taking fee-for-service element and deemphasizing it, maybe even eliminating it from the system. i think most of us think that's exactly where we like to go. but which when here and there, i think there's a concern about what that looks like as it launches. and so maybe you can talk a little bit about some of the other things that might help us because you that such great experiences with medicare d. this is a much bigger scale obviously. any other thoughts you have about how we get from here to the vision of what it looks like i've years out? >> it's going to be a lot of -- i think the corollar
to have firearms. >> 1938 is a long time ago. that was the law of the land until 2008. what change during that time. >> i always find that out at shows how gun control can work. very serious restrictions on non. >> all of our gun massacres, none have been committed with a fully automatic weapon. but what happened, you had the firearms act and importantly the 1960s have been. the racial turbulence of the 60s and the assassination of president kennedy, his brother, martin luther king eventually produced another gun control act. there was support for that and even in the leadership of the nra at the time. charlton heston subscribe to a statement that was read by another hollywood tough guy calling for some kind of regulation to prevent this repetition of the assassinations. they think like a lot of gun control measures comely support them in california. ronald reagan supported a gun-control measure because black panthers are running around the state legislature. it made it impossible to do that impose a waiting period on the time you needed people to apply for a handgun and actually being ab
of the problem, but because they did not have a good enforcement mechanism and because the laws on book wrs not enforced, we have a much greater problem today. e-verify is not the entire solution, but it is a critical part of the enforcement solution making it easier for employers to be abigail to know whether those presenting credentials to them for a job are indeed the person they say they are with the authorization they claim to have, and it does so electronically, which i think we'll see a demonstration of here today. let's get on with the opportunity to do that, and i'll put the rest of the statement in the record. thank you. >> i thank the chairman. i'll introduce you, have the demonstration, and recognize you for opening statements. i'll apologize for pronunciations that are a function of my inability to do things phonetically well. ms soraya correa. perfect it's not, but maybe close. associate director for the u.s. st'sship and immigration services, enterprise service director, and responsible for delivering immigration status and information in support of the uscis mission and over
or be in a position to consider this comprehensive response to our law enforcement that has already told us what they need. law enforcement does not take a partisan view in this. they just take a view what's going to help law enforcement, what's going to help us be safer. i think the senator and i came in from that position. thursday, the senate judiciary committee will continue our consideration of four measures to reduce gun violence. this issue, gun trafficking, straw purchases, was before the committee. what i am going to do is take my original trafficking bill, and i would tell the senators who are cosponsors and amend it with a text of the bipartisan compromise. i believe it approved the language already pending before the committee, provisions laid out in legislation are focused, they are commonsense remedies, and our bill does not affect lawful purchases from federal firearms licenseees, does not alter their rights and responsibilities, but our bill was drafted to request law enforcement to give needed tools to fight against the drug cartels, other criminals who threaten our communities.
that through. the president a year ago lined up -- signed a law that says that you can be detained indefinitely, that you can be sent from america to guantanamo bay without a trial, and he wants us to be comforted, he wants us to remember and think good of him because he says i don't intend to do so. it's not enough. i mean, would you tolerate a republican who stood up and said well, i like the first amendment, i'm quite fond of the first amendment, and i don't intend to break the first amendment but i might. would conservatives tolerate someone who said i like the second amendment? i think it's important and i am for gun ownership and i don't intend to violate the second amendment, but i might. would we tolerate that he doesn't intend to do so as a standard? we have to think about the standards being used overseas. the president finally admitted they interviewed him at google not too long ago, they interviewed him and asked him can you kill americans at home and he was evasive and he said but if there are rules, he said the rules would be different outside than inside. well, i certainly hope s
. calm down, senator, mr. holder is right. even if he doesn't explain the law very well, the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. i repeat that. the u.s. government cannot randomly target american citizens on u.s. soil or anywhere else. what it can do, under the laws of war, is target an enemy combatant, at anywhere, at any time, including on u.s. soil. this includes a u.s. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. the president can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity, government, say, or a terrorist network like al qaeda. that has taken up arms against the united states as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. that does not include hanoi jane. such a conflict exists between the u.s. and al qaeda. so, mr. holder is right. the u.s. could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen anwar awlaki had he continued to live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law, awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore in long island in world war ii and were
by that is a government that is more transparent, more accountable, more rule of law. where there are clear rules, and they are enforced equally, not are not enforced which is often the case, but are enforced based on who you are. i think this brings me to the what could happen. obviously, one scenario is a continuation of the status quo which i tend to think is the most likely, certainly in the short run, because the family i think, a, can't bring itself to agree on a younger leader yet and, b, even though many of them say there has to be change, they don't agree on what that change is. so, um, the status quo is the easiest thing. and the risk of of that, obviously, is further economic stagnation and stultify case and more unemployment. unemployment among young saudi men 20-24 is roughly 40%. and 40% of people live -- saudis, not foreigners, saudis -- live on less than a thousand dollars a month. so they're not all rich. and, indeed, that wealth disparity is a source of anger among a lot of saudis. another option is that the society, there is some younger prince who tries to open up a bit and re
government to carrying out activities in violation of international law and the domestic laws of many other countries. for north korea these criminal activities are viewed as necessary to maintain the power of the regime with no regard for the fact that they are corrosive to international law and order. so the question is, what steps can we take to combat north korea's illicit activities, and can our efforts to prevent these activities be used to pressure north korea to abandon its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs? now, i just heard on the news this morning that the agreement has been made ostensibly with china to punish north korea for its missile-launching nuclear tests. i hope that china will not do what it's done in the past and agree to sanctions and then just erode those sanctions so the sanctions really never took hold. i hope that china will finally understand that the north korean regime is a threat to stability in that region of the world and in many regions of the world, because as chairman royce pointed out, korea, north korea is a rogue state helping countries lik
practiced law, i didn't measure every client who came through the door to say, now, do i agree with every position my client is taking? of course not. the belief is that in our system of justice, both sides deserve a voice in the courtroom, and both sides, doing their best, give justice an opportunity. well, that's what caitlin halligan did as the solicitor general for the state of new york. now, listen to this. one of the arguments being made against her was she argued a position as solicitor general that favored using article 3 courts for the prosecution of terrorists. article 3 courts are the ordinary criminal courts of the land under our constitution. she argued that position. many republicans take an opposite position that anyone accused of terrorism should be tried in a military tribunal, not an ordinary criminal court. they've held that position, they argue that position, they get red in the face saying that's the only way to take care of terrorists. the relate city that since 9/11, president bush, as well as president obama, have had a choice between prosecuting terrorists in arti
law enforcement in poor communities of color and attempting to assist people who have been released from prison enter into a society which had never shown much use for them in the first place, i had a series of experiences that began what i now call my awakening. i began to awaken to a racial reality that is just so obvious to me now that what seems odd in retrospect is that i could have been blind to it for so long. as i write in the introduction to my book, "the new jim crow," what has changed since the collapse of jim crow has less to do with the basic structure of of our society than the language we use to justify it. in the era of color blindness, it is no longer socially permissible to use race explicitly as a justification for discrimination, exclusion and southerly contempt. social contempt. so we don't. rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color criminals and then engage in all the practices that we supposedly left behind. today it is perfectly legal to discriminate against criminals in nearly all the ways in which it was once lega
was involved in that? do you not get a chance to explain yourself in a court of law before you get a hellfire missile dropped on your head? so it just amazes me that people are so willing and eager to throw out the bill of rights and just say, oh, that's fine. you know, terrorists are a big threat to us. and, you know, i am a so fearful that they will attack me that i'm willing to give up my rights, i'm willing to give up on the bill of rights? i think we give up too easily. now, the president has responded and he said he hasn't killed anybody yet in america. and he says he doesn't intend to kill anyone in america, but he might. i frankly just don't think that's good enough. the president's oath of office says that i will -- not that "i might" or not that "i intend to" -- the president says "i will" protect, preserve, and defend the constitution. he doesn't say, i'll do it when it's practical or i'll do it unless it's unfeasible, unless it's unpleasant and people argue with me and i have to go through congress and i can't get anything done, then i will obey the constitution. it's a out there.
, the court said, cannot control as to whether the law is constitutional, but does control as to whether the antiinjunction statute applies. and this reminded me of louis carroll. [laughter] when i use a word, when i use a word like humpty dumpty, it means just what i choose it to mean, neither more, nor less. now, the magic of this dueling, call it taxonomy, means that because it is a penalty the court could go forward to consider its legality. because, but because it is a tax and not a penalty, it is a lawful exercise of the taxing power, not an unlawful exerlz of the power to regulate commerce. and a related irony is that five justices concluded that congress did not have the power under the commerce clause to regulate doing nothing. that is to say not buying health insurance. but five justices -- only chief justice in both camps -- held that congress does have the power to impose a tax for doing the very same nothing. not buying health insurance. so the constitutional law professor, president, who insisted that obamacare was constitutional was right all along. but he was right becaus
or down. up, man's old age dream, the ultimate and individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of owe toa tal tehranism totalitarianism. those who would trade freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. given the top of this discussion, the asserted power of the president to take the life of a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil without due process of law, that last portion bears reading again. those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course to the ant heap of totalitarianism. in this vote harvesting time, they use terms like the great society, or as we were told a few days ago by the president, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. but they've been a little more ex applies it in the past and among themselves. and of all of the things i now will quote have appeared in print. these are not republican accusations. for example, they have voices that say -- quote -- "the cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." another voice says "the profit mot
to the law, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction or other terrorism related cases, but through the sting operations, identify them first. it's easy to be empathetic to the fbi's view, and i try to talk about it in the book which is that if you're a case agent, and you have a guy on tape saying, you know, i want to bomb the subway system, you don't want to be the guy who says let's ignore him, and then six months later, he commits an act of terrorism. it's easy to understand why the fbi pursues these cases, but what i put out in the book is that there has yet to be an example of someone on their own capable of terrorism, someone who is a loud mouth, do you want have weapon, and meeting an operative and says, hey, here's a bomb. the only people providing the capacity is actually the fbi. you know, these sting operations are an evolution of drug stings. you've seen where, you know, in the movies, a guy has an empty briefcase, and two people believe there's cocaine inside, hand over the money, and hand over the briefcase, they open it, it's empty, they rush in and arrest the person
we heard there were stories about how the laws, for example repeating their passports were transferred to the country and where they had taken them. i was curious about your experience about the intersection between public policy -- >> it is diabolical. i am very glad to have authorized the violence against women act and within that was the trafficking victim protection act which helps ameliorate some of those double standards within the american law. so when help is the building block of all sustainability, when a girl was healthy she can go to school, she can stay in school, when she has her period and there's a latrine and there is what she needs for her hygiene she can stay in school and every year a girl stays in school she has her first child at an older age, fewer children, her earning capacity skyrockets exponentially, she contributes to her family, her community, a way to lift nations out of poverty and when you have laws like your friends, because girls are very vulnerable in that situation, so lots out there, direct civic participation, and land ownership, an inc
them under the law of war, we're going to exploit intelligence but we're going to do it within the laws that we've signed up to like the geneva convention, the convention against torture. so to my friends on this side of the aisle -- mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? mr. graham: absolutely. mr. durbin: to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle it was 12 hours ago i was standing here, a lonely voice among others who were discussing this issue bringing up the points that you raise. the first is the drone is a weapon. there are many weapons that can deliver lethal force. we should view this as an issue of lethal force, not an issue of drones per se, although it may raise some particular questions and application. it is largely a question of lethal force. the second question has been raised by the senator from -- both senators. what if the fourth airplane had not been brought down by the passengers? what if that plane were headed for this capitol building and all other planes had been landed across america under orders of our government and we knew this plane was the
: what is your background? >> at american university, i teach a combination of business law and actually don't really teach in the way international law courses and public international law. i am a visiting fellow at the hoover institution in california, nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution in washington d.c. and in those areas, most international security, this book, i am proud to say was published by the institution press, and i have a background that is schizophrenic, i have a background in finance and business and tax law and that sort of stuff. earlier in my career i was a long time non-profit lawyer and that sort of stuff, and general counsel to the george soros foundation and the open society. i have drifted to the right i have to say some what. before that i was the director of the human rights watch arms division in new york. i have another career in on profits of but also sort of the long background in transactional business practices a lot of which involve development and finance and international development issues and one of the things i enjoy it was the ch
smuggled himself out of england to find some extraordinarily strict british immigration laws that did not allow machinists, skilled artisans like himself to leave the british isles precisely because if they did, they would end up helping other countries rather than england. so he pretended to be a farmer or some such, smuggled himself to new york. moses brown heard about him, brought hip up to start a mill -- him up to start a mill, and moses brown actually had some smuggled machinery for him to work on to see if it might help. turned out to be mostly useless, so he can can ballized the parts, and the rest is history. another story's about fortunes made from illicit trade. everyone talks about how much money pablo escobar makes. i think a mexican drug trafficker has joined that infamous l list. you know if you're on the list, your days are probably numbered, because you're getting a little too much attention. if we look back at our history, some of our founding family fortunes are built on illicit trade. here, of course, i've already mentioned to brown brothers, but we can look to the
? >> you know, first, the national consumer law center as mentioned has done great reports on the card. i think, again, you know, i think at least 30 of the cards got a two thumbs operating, the best you can get. allowing one free action is a good approach for a lot of cards to do that. the elimination of overdraft is really important. the real important features of the card, but i think also overall, encouraging direct deposit for those who are eligible for it is still really important. there are a lot of people are getting prepaid cards the likes of you have bank accounts at a financial institution, credit union, and i think they can, i think there's nervousness around may the government deposits in those accounts. so one thing we still want to impress on people is almost always the best option to do direct deposit if they can. >> going back to the branch access issues. melissa, it's clearly one of the problem you're designing a car for ohio and you have a few major banking players and you try to cover as many fans as possible, how do you go about that when you're looking at a card for
, but a fella sometime around 101,100. a recent surge by the british. we have a common law system and we observed from a. the british are rapidly losing their common law system through the e.u. not because we are the only nation on earth to common law. everybody else follows french civil law. common law is the notion that god plans the law in the hearts of the people, that they know what's right and wrong and the other theaters as the germans did to enforce the law that everybody else i ready knows is right. civil law stems from divine right of games, which does god plans the law and the heart of the ruler and dispenses it as he sees fit. that's really where most of the state fire. a christian, mostly protestant, i don't think too many people would argue with that. private property rights with titles and deeds. this is brought out in a boat by hernando desoto called the mystery of capital, in which he argues one of the missing things in much of what i used to call a third world which they have property, but they don't have written titles and deeds to the property that allowed them to the
be is that whitey brought the fbi the nation's top law enforcement to its knees. he harnessed the power of the fbi on his behalf and that is what gave him his rise to power and his longevity and no one else in this underworld has that claim to fame so to speak. that is his historic marker that we should never forget because he compromised the fbi for so many years. it's a subject and a topic we went deep on and check for 20 years which whitey had his so called holy alliance with the fbi we refer to as the black mass years and we have taken those and in the new book whitey we have put them in the larger context, the full arc of his long life and getting into the project to finance the research for the past year or so got away we were astonished by how much new material and information we were able to uncover and work with in trying to put together the long life of whitey taking a look at the making of the monster, the house and the body of whitey. these are things when you read him you are going to be reading about whether it is tracing the family, the history of the family backed off your land for
it works but we need to beef up the bankruptcy law to deal with failing financial institutions. with what wayne said which was very insightful, i thought, the 2009 stress test, i originally was very skeptical. but i had to it to report on the stress test the major financial institutions were insolvent although some needed more capital and was insolvent that eases concerns in the market that fit well with the mark to market accounting because that cause a panic among investors all over the world. once the fed came in to say it is not insolvent created from mark to market accounting was relieved and at that point* the equity prices of those 19 institutions began to rise. although i was skeptical, i came to support its after words. the important thing is coming it was an anecdote to a terrible policy. mark to market is a ridiculous policy in a major cause of the financial crisis that will be covered in detail in the book i am now writing what caused the financial crisis. sorry to mention "the new york times", an article in the business section about the fact those a make rules white car mark
. there's a legal framework when you read the law and you read, for example, what the attorney general has said among others, there's a very broad legal framework in which you can operate. but the policy framework is and should be much narrower. so i think that is the framework that people should have confidence and being exercised and know that these dispitions are made -- decisions are made very carefully. >> thank you. christina, next. drill down border enforcement. janet napolitano, there's a lot of publicity about the immigrant demainee. you were explaining to me there's a number call issue you face. >> there was a story we released 2,000 detainee because of sequester. that is really not accurate. >> it was not . >> it was not politico -- i won't say who it put it out there. and as in all things, immigration it develops its own mythology. here is the deal. we are constantly, as the secretaries. know, moving people in and out of detention. these are immigrants who illegal immigrants who for one reason or another are just better in detention than under some alternative. with sequester l
. >> to make it to responses, justice breyer. the first one focuses on the operation of the law and the consequences that flow from it. i do not think shelby county or alabama got to bring a successful challenge on the basis that it ought not to have covered arizona or alaska. the statute has been a mechanism. those jurisdictions can build themselves out of it and if they do and it doesn't work, they may very well have a challenge they can bring to the law. that doesn't justify given the structure of the law that there's a tailored mechanism. >> i don't understand the distinction between facial and a supplied and they talk about formula. as applied to shelby county are covered because of the formula, so they challenge as applied to them. i'm not even sure what your position is on the formula. if the formula congruent and proportional today? review had this reverse engineering argument? >> congress' decision to reenact it was congruent and proportional. >> to the problem was the formula congruent and proportionate? >> the court has found four different times at the formula in the
't those types? >> yes, but making it a law bounding, requiring the treasury department to actually take action i think would make a difference. >> okay. that's my only question. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go now to ms. gabbard. >> thank you to our panel here for being here today. i represent the second congressional district in hawaii, which as we have seen for the last couple of lunches, experts have testified that hawaii a low whistle of our northwestern states are within range within missile range of north korea. so this is an issue that's very real for us, not only as a state but also because of our military presence there and strategic location within our national defense. i'm wondering your view of what the current estimate is realistically of when north korea may have a warhead missile combination that could strike the united states, as well as your assessment of our missile defense and we can do to prevent this from occurring, or at least slowing down their progress? >> well, i believe they are quite a ways from having that capability, congresswoman. i was talking ab
though is the national organization for the marijuana laws failed miserably in its attempts to the cloister regional marijuana. but then seized upon medical marijuana had enormous success. just like they say, you spoke a little bit of marijuana and mixture onto. in this case can be smoke legal medical marijuana and yearned to full legalization concert of a steppingstone. the ones that have legalized it r.d. have medical marijuana. just a development thing if people give our customers, not so shocking to know that. the next state to legalize possibly be new york. that is my opinion. the northern north liberal states in the western states in particular are going to be the states most likely at this point in time. i'm not sure this is the legalize marijuana if they have to be south of the mason dixon line. those are basically republican dominated conservative state and i think it would be unlikely for them to legalize anytime in the near future with the possible exception of texas. there's a liberal element, mostly based in austin and doubtless that is growing fast and it may n
related standards, practices and laws and regulations. we should have thought a measure to prevent and control pollution and change the way we work and live. we should be determined to solve the problems and slow pollution to affect the people is vital interest. we should improve quality and safeguard to how and give the people hope for concrete action. we should do our geological work while and become better able to prevent and mitigate natural disasters. we should optimize development of the country's territory on a proper pace. we should string then the management and the economy to become better able to exploit the ecological environment. by mark we should continue to entertain the strategy for developments. and promote balanced development between regions. we should make full use of the comparative strength of each region that plans comprehensively and give guidance tailored to different circumstances. we should give high priority to large-scale developments of the western region so we can revitalize the bases in china and the rights of central reasons and support the eastern
including women's suffrage, later became law. one of the idiocy had in 1911 was something called old age insurance which today we call social security. a radical idea, so radical that he could not get any votes for it. it in the 1930's obviously franklin roosevelt, the new deal, the progress of congress, the grass roots labor movement and protest movements of the time pushed the system to be more progressive. and it passed social security. even at the time, the business community, conservatives said this is a socialist and radical idea that will ruin the economy. so it was still considered a radical idea, but it was, nevertheless, now law. about a year go the poll was done of tea party members -- about 50 percent of all the tea party members that they polled said that congress and the business community should not mess with social security. it up the social security was sacrosanct. how did this idea of social security go from being a socialist radical idea hundred years ago to something that today even right wing tea party members feel is so embedded in our society as part of our mainstr
changes in market places, these were provisions set up in the law for states to step in and establish what is called these exchanges and the place where individuals can go and purchase coverage. for lower income individuals, you have heard like subsidies and credits are important. through these individual exchanges from the federal government will do tax credits and subsidies. primarily for lower income americans for coverage all of this is linked together. you may be able to go to exchanges and get credit for subsidies to do this. all of these provisions are linked together. to be candid, this is not so great. employers have always offered this in a voluntary manner the law has requirements on how this is offered. under the definition, it says that every large employer must offer coverage. the definition is if you have more than 50 employees, you have to offer coverage. you have to do a calculation. you can have as few as 20 or 25 employees, but you have to have this in a careful way. if you have 50 employers, you have to have coverage. a lot of mom-and-pop shops in donut shops and hambur
of california who is is possible for the first minimum-wage law, a workmen's compensation law, the first major regulations on the railroad industry, corporations. his counterpart in the 1930's, radical governor of minnesota. marcantonio, the great congressman from new york who is a protege of someone also in my book, the mayor of new york. and the great paul melson who died more than ten years ago in a tragic airplane crash was a great hero and the principal politician. the great feminist and peace leader who was in congress before that had been involved in the women's rights in peace and civil rights movement as a lawyer. of the 100 people, about 20 of them are people who either ran for office or who were elected for office. of the renter of the -- ran for office like upton sinclair. almost one on an end poverty in california platform but did not win. eugene debs was never elected to anything. victor berger was a member of congress. and so the library of politicians and the people who are most controversial in my book are theodore roosevelt who was a military stand imperialism but also a stro
distress. our foreign policy is inseparable from supporting international law. we must assist the genuine, moderate and democratic forces in syria who are in dire need of help and who feel abandoned by the international community. the longer this conflict goes on, the more human suffering, persecution of minorities, radicalization and sectarian conflict there will be. despite these three compelling arguments, there will still be those who say britain should have nothing to do with syria. but we cannot look the other way while human rights are flouted, and it would be height of irresponsibility to ignore potential threat to our own security. so i want to explain to the house today the next step in increasing our support to the syrian people, and i emphasize there may well have to be further steps. we have contributed nearly 140 million pounds in humanitarian aid so far. this is funding foot, clean drinking water, medical stabs, blankets and shelter for many tens of thousands of people. we're supporting the syrian national coalition's own efforts to deliver aid inside syria, and we will see
're the only ones of who have common law christian religion, private property rights and free market. >> and in your book from 2011, "what would the founders say," one of the questions you ask there is, is the government responsible for protecting the land and private property? what's the answer to that question? .. the people. >> host: what about the question of money supply in the government? >> guest: that is interesting. take it back a little ways. in 1990-'91 i was invited to a meeting in europe, only time i have been to europe to a meeting. there were a lot of big brains there. going down the danube with five nobel prize winners and i wasn't one of them and it was milton friedman, and headed debate with milton friedman, mr. freemarket about free and competitive money and he was arguing the government should control the money supply. competitive money, reliable economy with fewer panic. >> religion, what would the founders say? >> the founders were unanimous the government should not establish a religion nor should it prevent the worship of any sport. every state constitution ha
and activities of international law and the domestic laws of many other countries. for north korea, these criminal activities are viewed as necessary to maintain the power of the regime without regard for the fact they are corrosive to international law and order. the question is what steps can we take to combat north korea's illicit dvds encounter after its be used to pressure north korea to abandon nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. i heard on the news this morning the agreement has been made extensively with china to punish north korea for its missile launching nuclear tests. i hope china will not do what it's done in the past and agree to sanctions and then just erode the sanctions so the sanctions never took hold. i hope china will finally understand the north korean regime is a threat to stability in that region of the world and because as chairman pointed out, north korea is a rogue state, helping countries like syria try to obtain nuclear weapons to collaborate with iran. i want this committee to know that on this issue, there is not a millimeters worth of diff
educated and entertained will retaliate the bill became law except though lobbyist and it made sense but the idea of educating and entertaining that we can begin to meet people where they are is fundamental. >> host: how did they get money at a politics. >> how does it work? >> think of secrecy even the president of the nation's history was prone to that on the issue of drones to killing americans the citizens. >> of president hussein. >> and more transparent than any other. >> and from which the the cost the government kept secrets from the people they will not find a from the government. >> guest: that said but information wants to be free and it will make its way to the public. we live in a glass house and fishable society. the folks like you told us to account, the sunshine laws, freedom of information , any time michael krasny ask for freedom of information i know i am in serious trouble. and expos eight, five per series by definition. so we are anesthetized because we know that gotcha framework will be engaged. but we are past that with the leaks as a perfect reminder that the
. they find it advantageous to process and grow food or it's cheaper in countries where the environmental laws are weaker than they could have an easier time dictating policies. increasingly our foods are being produced in these countries. if you're talking about organics, it is difficult to verify that in the united states that the product is meeting the standard. we can imagine how this is happening in places like china. >> in much of this and other programs online that booktv.org. >> we have allowed a human rights nightmare took her on our watch. in the years since doctor king's death, a system of racial and social control has emerged from the ashes of slavery and jim crow law. a system of mass incarceration that has doctor king turning in his grave. the mass incarceration of poor people of color in the united states is paramount to a new caste system, one that schulz young people to decrepit schools and brand-new high-tech prisons. it is a system that locks people into a permanent status, it is, in my view, the moral equivalent of jim crow. >> booktv's first online book club with michelle
. no matter the work we did and the stories we heard. there was stories about how the laws in lebanon, for example would prevent women from obtaining their passport back when they entered to the country. and the employers had taken them away. so i was just curious about your experience and the places you traveled about the intersection between public health and law. >> absolutely. it's diabolical. and i'm glad that congress reauthorize the violence against women act and within that was the trafficking victims protection act comp helps to -- which helps to get -- double standards within american law. too often we victimize the victim. in term of internationally, that's why i referenced that none of these problems exist in isolation and the solutions are also holistic. when, you know, health is the building block of all sustainability. when a girl is healthy, she can go to school. she can stay in school. when she has her period and there is a will treen -- toilet and what she needs for the high gene, she can stay in school. for every year a girl stays in school, she has her first child
passed to strengthen the laws we have in our country. laura and i have worked real hard this past year and a half or so in oklahoma. we were trying to get a new law passed, one that would help our schools to make sure this never happens again to another baby or family. it's really ironic in the one-year anniversary of the day we. ty, may 17, oklahoma lawmakers decided they were going to kill our law. one of them from coast to win on the channels and said we don't need to laws against saturday. all we have to do is learn how to follow the golden rule, treat others the way we want to be treated. you're shaking your head? you see something wrong with that? yes, sir, me, too. if lawmakers said we don't need no solace. we just need to learn how to follow the golden rule? i don't know about you, but i'm thinking if we don't need new laws, why do we even if lawmakers? for a misguided soul didn't have a clue, did she? i know buys aren't going to stop bullying. without bias against almost everything. doesn't stop them from happening, does it? we have to give the schools and parents the backing
, accountable, ru le of law where with there enforced equally enforced or not enforced as is the case but based on your so this brings me to what could happen obviously one scenario is the status quo that is the most likely in the short run because the family and i cannot bring themselves to agree on a young girl leader and even though many say their task to be changed they don't agree with it is the status quo is the easiest and it is further economic stagnation and unemployment among young saudi men 2324 is roughly 40% not foreigners. saudis live on less than $1,000 per month. so indeed the wealth disparity has thinker among the lot of saudis. there is a young bird prints to tries to open up and revive the economy. the risk is it produces a backlash among the conservatives who don't want more changes and openness and opportunity for women that they say is the road to ruin. if you got to a religious back class -- backlash modernizers. said to that backlash, the author is the leader as a way to control this is to revert to the religiosity of the '80s and '90s after they attacked on the math:mos
've got to kelly, david, we had an issue in rhode island, we were trying to pass primary seatbelt law two years ago and david came up, and worked with our leadership as again, absolute advantage to get that done. we get past that but the 11th hour, the senator was a little curveball. and it didn't sit well with us or with the david, and they put some laws on the law which expires this june. so what we're doing now is again working with nhtsa and doing everything we possibly can to get that sunset repeals and a very confident that will happen issue. so it won't be in vain, thank you. last but not least, david matsuda is national maritime administration, and was sworn in the maritime administration june of 2010, had been acting maritime administrator since being appointed by president obama in '09. there's that thing. prior to that he served as acting assistant secretary for transportation policy for march '09 until his appointment as deputy. he spent seven years on capitol hill. david, welcome. let's give our panel a welcome. [applause] >> if any you have been around the last couple of day
is called the most ambitious man in the world's. it is a quote about abraham lincoln and his law partners. abraham lincoln from nearly as part of his life, family members would have said he was awfully hungry to be somebody. once he got in trouble with his older sister he said behaving like that, what do you expect? he said president of the united states. as president lincoln said there was never a time in my life when i didn't believe i was going to be president of the united states. this was someone who was very determined and work hard to make something of himself and have his life be one we would remember and talk about so many years later. and he made his first bid for congress and he writes a friend of his and says did you hear anyone say mr. lincoln is a good friend of mine, kelly about this statement, the truth is i would like to go very much. clinton has two major obstacles in his way. one is a gentleman named edward baker who is a friend of his. another is a gentleman named john hart. both of these men have similar qualifications, they are all about the same age, all three lawye
for the reform of marijuana laws, norml, failed miserably in its attempts to legalize recreational marijuana. but then seized upon medical marijuana and have had enormous success with that. thinking that that is the, just like they say, you smoke a little bit of marijuana and next you're on to heroin. in this case, you smoke a little bit of legal medical mare, and you're on to legalization. sort of a steppingstone. and the ones who have legalized it already had legal medical mare, so, you know, it's just a development kind of thing. it's no so shocking and all that. the next state to legalize marijuana could possibly be new york. that is my opinion. and the northern, more liberal states and the western states in particular, um, are going to be the states most likely to legalize marijuana at this point in time. i'm not sure any states will legalize marijuana. if they happen to be south of the mason dixon line. those are, basically, republican-dominated, conservative states, and i think it'd be unlikely for them to legalize it anytime in the near future with the possible exception of texas. th
to transmit. is not meant to be a course in copyright law. not meant to the copyright 101 and here it exclusive rights and here is a limitation or defense in section 107. is really meant as a program aimed at people using peer to peer, or those who are casual users who want to make sure unauthorized content isn't going over their system, that they know there is a way to avoid that and they can find content legally on surfaces online music matters or netflix or anything like that. >> if i could just disagree with you a little bit my understanding is the center for copyright information does want to be a resource about copyright because part of a problem we identified is people don't understand how copyright works. so i would hope comment aunt and planning and certainly being an advocate for insuring that when we get to that education phase, obviously fair use and lawful uses are robust and vigorous part of that education and that is certainly not killing from behind. so the cpi has pretensions on being more than just operating this copyright alert system and having a more vibrant di
. at this time. you know in 1994, there were only seven states with charter schools. school laws and sixty operational charter schools. today there are more than 5,000 charter schools in forty states. and d.c. the rapid growth of charter schools presents an opportunity to help reform our education system by presenting innovative practicing that can be incorporated in to traditional public school. this growth also presents risk and requires rigorous oversight. deputy secretary miller, one of the concerns iched -- identified in the inspector general's letter to the committee is how effectively -- pardon me, is overseeing an monitor charting school grant. there are numerous report of fraud. do you agree with the concern that there needs to be increased accountability for charter school funds once they reach the entity running the charter school? >> subsequently. yes. we believe that from a policy stand point, the growth in charter school and posh they offer for being able to develop innovative reform are good. we think oftentimes so you a proliferation in different oversight and authorization
is there are certain counties in this country which protect conceal and carry laws which people permit and a lot of people do in these areas, they carry concealed weapons. i'm wondering if there has been any data or statistics done on the incidence of violent crimes or mass killings, in those areas that permit concealed weapons as opposed to an area like the district of colombia which have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. so can we see any kind of statistical relationship between the number of people in an area that would be carrying concealed weapons as opposed to an area like the district of colombia which no one is permitted to carry a concealed weapon? >> okay, let me deal with the first one first. let's fletcher lined. >> okay. i had to deal with carry and conceal weapons in environments. >> okay, there was a terrific show. it was either dateline or 2020. they took a bunch of students who had training in guns and basically gave them fake guns and at some point, someone was going to come in with a gun and start shooting. not a real gun, of course and they would record a respons
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 64 (some duplicates have been removed)